Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/ ^ | September 29, 2003 | Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Posted on 09/29/2003 7:09:06 AM PDT by DittoJed2


Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name
Albert Mohler

Daniel Dennett claims that atheism is getting a bad press. The world is filled with religious believers, he acknowledges, but a growing number of atheists lack the respect they deserve. It's time for a new public relations strategy for the godless, Dennett argues, and he has just the plan.

The central point of Dennett's strategy is to get rid of the word "atheist." It's too, well, negative. After all, it identifies an individual by what he or she does not believe--in this case the individual does not believe in God. A more positive approach would be helpful to advance the atheist anti-supernatural agenda.

Dennett, joined by Richard Dawkins, thinks he has found the perfect plan. Two atheists in California have suggested that the anti-supernatural crowd should take a page from the homosexual rights movement's handbook. Homosexuals renamed themselves "gays" and changed the terms of the debate, they argue.

As Richard Dawkins explains, "A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word 'gay'.... Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an 'up' word, where homosexual is a down word and queer [and] faggot . . . are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like 'gay'."

The word chosen to be the atheists' version of 'gay' is bright. That's right, they want unbelievers to call themselves brights. Give them an "A" for arrogance.

Of course, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins are already specialists in the highest form of intellectual snobbery. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, and Dawkins, a scientist at Oxford University, are well known for their condescending dismissal of all belief in the supernatural. Both address their scorn to anyone who believes in God or dares to question naturalistic evolution.

Their plan, if successful, would put believers in God in the unenviable position of being opposed to "brights" who deny belief in God. This is, no pun avoidable, a diabolically brilliant public relations strategy. The real question is: Will it work?

In "The Bright Stuff," an op-ed column published in The New York Times, Dennett simply declared, "It's time for us brights to come out of the closet." Now, that's an invitation sure to get attention.

He continued, "What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny--or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic--and life after death."

Brights are all around us, Dennett claims. Brights are "doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority." Had enough?

Dennett wants to be the Moses of the atheist cause, leading his people out of bondage to theists and into the promised land of atheistic cultural influence--a land flowing with skepticism and unbelief.

The most absurd argument offered by Dennett is that brights "just want to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less." Those familiar with the work of Dennett and Dawkins will be waiting for the laughter after that claim. The same respect? These two militant secularists show no respect for religious belief.

Philosopher Michael Rea of the University of Notre Dame couldn't let Dennett and Dawkins get away with such hogwash. 'The fact is," he asserts, "the likes of Dennett and Dawkins aren't the least bit interested in mutual respect." Dennett has suggested that serious religious believers should be isolated from society in a "cultural zoo." Dawkins has argued that persons who reject naturalistic evolution are "ignorant, stupid or insane." Well, now--is that their vision of "mutual respect?"

As for the anti-supernaturalists calling themselves "brights," Rea argues, "The genuinely tolerant atheist will refuse the label; for the the very respect and humility that characterize her tolerance will also help her to see that in fact their are bright people on both sides of the theist/atheist divide."  [See Rea's exchange with Dennett]

Timothy K. Beal, professor of religion at Case Western Reserve University, notes that the brights demonstrate "an evangelical tone" in their writings. Beal perceptively notes that, in their determination to be irreligious, these atheists have just established a new anti-religious religion. But what they really want is not only respect, but cultural influence.

Dennett's New York Times column decried "the role of religious organizations in daily life," contrasted with no such public role for secularists. Of course, this claim is sheer nonsense. Dennett and Dawkins boast that most scientists and intellectuals are atheists. They are without influence?

G. K. Chesterton once identified atheism as "the most daring of all dogmas," since it is the "assertion of a universal negative." As he explained; "for a man to say that there is no God in the universe is like saying that there are no insects in any of the stars."

The Psalmist agreed, and spoke in even more dramatic terms: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'." [Psalm 14:1] The atheists are caught in a difficult position. They reject belief in God, but draw attention to God even as they shout their unbelief. In the end, they look more foolish than dangerous.

This call for a new public relations strategy will likely backfire. Hijacking the term bright shows insecurity more than anything else. A movement of secure egos would not resort to calling itself "brights."

Atheism may try to change its name, but it cannot succeed in changing its nature. This bright idea doesn't look so bright after all.

 

 Article Resources


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: athiests; brights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 321-340 next last
To: Revolting cat!
Our 'bright' friends have yet to refute this simple truth, after 100 years of great "successes" of atheism that murdered 100 million and enslaved a billion.

Naturally, take intellectually bankrupt political systems and blame it on "lack of belief in gods", as though that's all that was involved. For some reason my lack of belief in gods hasn't led me to desire to enslave or murder anyone (except for e-mail spammers, and I daresay that a number of theists hold the same opinion). Perhaps I'm not a "true atheist" or, perhaps -- more likely -- you're a presumptious twit.
121 posted on 09/29/2003 9:18:56 AM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
This is in Matthew Chapter 7, (NIV):

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

The last phrase is translated in the KJV as being "workers of iniquity".

Take care for the fruit you are bearing, brother. You may want to brush on The Sermon on the Mount. It includes many fundamental teachings of Christ.

122 posted on 09/29/2003 9:19:04 AM PDT by L,TOWM (Liberals, The Other White Meat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Really? Elijah mocked the priests of Baal. I merely mock the priests of neodarwinism.

Elijah was beholden to the old Covenant. Are you?

123 posted on 09/29/2003 9:19:57 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Precisely. It is the same insecurity which inspires some Christians to hate Jews. We reject what they hold as absolutely necessary. Some cannot handle having their faith called into question, even by the mere existence of those who disagree with them.

Exactly. Insecurity, fear, and intellectual laziness.

124 posted on 09/29/2003 9:20:37 AM PDT by balrog666 (As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: general_re
You are deliciously subversive, sometimes.
125 posted on 09/29/2003 9:20:50 AM PDT by L,TOWM (Liberals, The Other White Meat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I would have replied, but exmarine has shown that he's completely dishonest. He insists that established logical fallacies are valid argument techniquest, including strawman arguments (like his utterly false claim regarding atheists) and argument from the consequences (where he argues that atheism is obviously false because he doesn't like what he perceives as the consequences of it).
126 posted on 09/29/2003 9:21:02 AM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Sweeping generalization. Many atheists may be moral relativists, but there are also atheists who believe in an objective morality. So your statement here is false.

The atheists I refer to are the ANTI-THEISTIC ones (not the ones who don't give a flip). I'm talking about the ones (like you?) who are trying to ERASE America's Christian heritage, who do everything they can to oppose Christians and God, who are the enemies of religious freedom. Does the shoe fit?

By the way, atheists who believe in an objective morality are seriously confused. Pssst...Let me give you a clue - morals have only TWO POSSIBLE SOURCES - man or God. There are no other possibilities. If you think there is, then you need to name a 3rd source...

You are a jew? I have nothing against Jews - I am among the staunchest supporters of Israel, and Jesus Christ himself was a jew. But I do take exception with the ADL and other anti-Christian BIGOTS who are villifying Mel Gibson and are constantly attacking Christians. Are you one of those?

127 posted on 09/29/2003 9:21:58 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: DrC
My dictionary defines "atheist" as one who DENIES the existence of God.

Your dictionary is inadequate. A = without, theism = belief in a god or gods --> atheism = without belief in a god or gods. Otherwise, what would you call "lack of belief in a god or gods"?

Consider that the definition itself is loaded by using the term "God", which implies a single monothesitic deity rather than a generic deity descriptor like "gods".
128 posted on 09/29/2003 9:23:01 AM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I have traveled that road myself.

Not really worth the effort.

129 posted on 09/29/2003 9:23:08 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
You like to play fast and loose with scripture. I didn't see anything in there that would prevent me from TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT ATHEISM... I think you need a commentary. But if you truly are my "brother," I would suggest that you think about the implications of joining with heathens in attacking a brother.
130 posted on 09/29/2003 9:24:37 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
You wouldn't know a covenant from apple butter.
131 posted on 09/29/2003 9:25:53 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Why do you say that?
132 posted on 09/29/2003 9:26:45 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
Normally I might throw gas on the fire, but I see that I'm already too late for that ;)
133 posted on 09/29/2003 9:27:12 AM PDT by general_re (SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Sarcasm Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks To Your Health.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
But if you truly are my "brother," I would suggest that you think about the implications of joining with heathens in attacking a brother.

Remarkably telling insight, into the mind of exmarine.

134 posted on 09/29/2003 9:28:15 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Its the sort of thing a Teamster boss would say to keep a union brother in line.
135 posted on 09/29/2003 9:29:44 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
The atheists I refer to are the ANTI-THEISTIC ones

Then perhaps you should qualify your remarks when you make them.

I'm talking about the ones (like you?)

Having already said that I believe in God, that I am not a moral relativist and that I am a Jew, should have been sufficient to dispel any doubt on the matter.

By the way, atheists who believe in an objective morality are seriously confused.

Maybe they are confused, maybe they aren't. But that doesn't mean that they don't believe in an objective morality.

But I do take exception with the ADL and other anti-Christian BIGOTS who are villifying Mel Gibson and are constantly attacking Christians. Are you one of those?

I have no use for the ADL. I also have little use for Mel Gibson. I do not attack Christians qua Christians. My belief system does not require others to believe as I do.

136 posted on 09/29/2003 9:30:04 AM PDT by malakhi (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Perhaps I'm not a "true atheist" or, perhaps -- more likely -- you're a presumptious twit.

How intelligent! How witty! How original! What a departure from the usual cliche that would say "perhaps -- more likely -- I'm a presumptious twit." What a sophisticated intellectual refutation of Dostoyevsky's statement, and of the widely accepted version of the causes of the 20th century horrors. We might as well surrender to the moral code of the atheists. But which ones? Oh, I'll take Woody Allen's atheistic standards.

"If there is no God, then everything is permitted" -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

137 posted on 09/29/2003 9:30:34 AM PDT by Revolting cat! (Far out, man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
In defense of my brother, "grace" vs. "law" is a pretty difficult concept for a lot of GOOD (not TV type) pastors to teach on, let alone us flock members to try to puzzle through.
138 posted on 09/29/2003 9:30:54 AM PDT by L,TOWM (Liberals, The Other White Meat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Define "contradiction" - let's see if you know what you are talking about...

I am certain you are well aware of the numerous "time, place, manner & what-was-said" contradictions contained within.

Or maybe not -- judging by the number of times you have sinned on this thread.

139 posted on 09/29/2003 9:32:02 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
"If there is no God, then everything is permitted" -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

What does not follow from this is that everyone would choose to do evil.

140 posted on 09/29/2003 9:33:16 AM PDT by malakhi (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 321-340 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson